Minister Murphy seemed unaware of a lot of what was being done in his department

Conor Murphy came to the Assembly’s Regional Development Committee today to explain his role in the crisis which has engulfed Northern Ireland Water and his department.

The minister demonstrated a worrying lack of understanding of some of the detail on events that took place in his department that lead to the finalisation of the Independent Review Team’s report. 

He appears to be arguing that the end justifies the means, in that there were serious problems in his department over procurement processes and the minister believes he has taken swift action to rectify that, irrespective of what happened in between. However, questions still remain over how the processes occurred.

There is no argument that there’s a serious crisis of confidence in Northern Ireland Water, however, I still believe there’s a cloud hanging over the integrity of the Independent Review process. 

I asked the minister to supply the committee with all drafts on the report received by the department because I believe there is a continued need to get to the bottom of what happened and when.

Can ‘middle Ulster’ find common ground with ‘middle Ireland’ – Prof Arthur Aughey’s speech to McCluskey Summer School

University of Ulster Professor of Politics,  Arthur Aughey,  made a thoughtful contribution to the  McCluskey Summer School on the future of Liberal/Progressive Unionism which is reproduced below. 

Roy Garland and Dr John Kyle also spoke and I will post their speeches here if I can get copies of them.

One of my old tutors, the political philosopher Bob Berki, used to argue that every political movement worth its salt needed both insight and vision.

What is the insight of liberal/progressive Unionism? It is that the Union has no security unless Catholics too can feel secure in Northern Ireland and unless there is goodwill between North and South.

What is the visionof liberal/progressive Unionism? It is that the United Kingdom remains the best arrangement for at once reconciling and transcending the enmities of the narrow ground of Ulster politics. Formerly the civilisational aspect of this was central, the idea of participation in the providential mission of the United Kingdom. Today the instrumental aspect is often cited – that Northern Ireland’s material welfare is best served by membership of the United Kingdom.

Of course, insight and vision are often coherent and consistent only within an ideological tradition. They can be sincerely subscribed to even when reality is resistant to their appeal to benevolence. In short, it remains rhetorically powerful if not practically convincing.

There is an assumption at the heart of liberal unionism and it is the possibility that ‘middle Ulster’ can find common ground with ‘middle Ireland’ (within Northern Ireland and between North and South). That common ground can be found insofar as Unionists and Nationalists think rationally and put material interests before sectarian ones. (Liberal nationalism, of course, assumes something similar albeit the role and mission are inverted).

This is nothing new, of course.

The Irish Association, for example, was founded in 1938 on the best liberal Unionist values in order ‘to make reason and goodwill take the place of passion and prejudice in Ireland’. However, as one of its stalwart members, Mary McNeill, wrote at the time – ‘I don’t see how you can go blethering to Catholics about goodwill if you are not prepared to hold out some hope of fair treatment’. The old Stormont regime was unable to do that, even though the discrimination attributed to that regime was never to the oppressive excess which Nationalist and Republican ideologues have claimed (see John Whyte).

When thinking of Nationalists the liberal vision is often at odds with the insight, resolving itself into the proposition that the Northern Ireland problem would resolve itself once Catholics became British – explicitly in Terence O’Neill’s view in 1963 that, if given a chance by Stormont, Catholics would behave like Protestants; and implicitly in Bob McCartney’s Campaign for Equal Citizenship which thought that, if given the chance to support UK parties, Catholics would begin to vote like free-born Brits.

If liberal Unionism, then, seems to misrecognise nationalist opinion (rather, idealise it according to its own requirements) it can often fail to understand the anxieties and concerns of unionists. The criticism of liberal unionism can take a number of forms, three of which are familiar in the communal language of Northern Ireland politics.

1 That liberal unionism is fine but only for those who can afford to escape or ignore Northern Ireland’s sectarian reality – locally known as GPS or ‘Guilty Prod Syndrome’.

2 That liberal unionism ignores the fact that politics in Northern Ireland is all about Friends and Enemies. Unionist enemies will only take liberal moderation to be weakness and, in its compromising tendency,  it is no longer clear whether the liberal/progressive is a friend any longer and may compromise the communal security of unionists – or, to use that old Provo phrase, when liberals choose to ignore its popular ‘base’, what it proposes may be wonderful but its not politics.

3 That liberal unionism tends towards one of those solutions which assume that Unionists aren’t Unionist and Nationalists aren’t nationalists – and how many of those have we come across in the last 40 years? One of those solutions was Norman Porter’s civic unionism which, when further elaborated in his book The Elusive Quest, is a solution for angels not men and women.

 In other words, liberal unionism (like liberal nationalism) is always dogged by the fundamentalism of the zero-sum problem.

Take, for example, one of the questions from the latest Northern Ireland Life and Times survey. Those surveys tend to present Northern Ireland opinion in its Sunday best but I think this one is most revealing.

The question is: A political gain for one religious tradition in Northern Ireland usually results in a loss of ground for the other? – 53% agreed and 15% were too polite to say! However, with all allowance for positive response syndrome, it looks like about three-quarters of the Northern Ireland electorate believe this is a truism of politics.

Despite all the progressive, liberal sentiments you find in Northern Ireland Life and Times survey I think that is one of the most revealing responses.

So liberal/progressive Unionism risks irrelevance on both counts – unpersuasive for nationalists and missing the point for unionists. To which one may now add a third – having its clothing stolen by the DUP. This must appear a very pessimistic assessment.

However, when you consider the contributions to the Newsletter’s Union 2021 series it is striking that (with a few exceptions) contemporary Unionism – in its diversity – is reasonably optimistic about its future, possibly most consistently for a generation. If this is true, then the future is not without its promise. For liberal Unionism requires optimism in order to flourish.

To return to Bob Berki: his magnum opus was On Political Realism and its message was that historical pessimism must be qualified by present optimism. And the situation has changed such that the meaning of liberal unionism needs to be modified too.

Having won the principle of consent to constitutional change, unionism has had to accept the principle that nationalists must consent to political arrangements in Northern Ireland. And it is no longer clear that the old prescriptions convince no longer, especially in a society in which reconciliation remains skin deep.

Schopenhauer’s fable of the porcupines may suggest a way forward.

A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told — in the English phrase — to keep their distance . By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked.

The DUP and Sinn Fein have both made the most of that fable politically but want – and prosper – by the ‘two communities’ keeping their distance. Liberal unionism – and liberal nationalism – can only prosper by accepting that moderate distance also requires mutual warmth. In our present circumstances, that culture of goodwill is not to be lightly despised.

Progressive not resentful nationalism needed – Margaret Ritchie’s speech to McCluskey Summer School

The McCluskey Summer School took place on Saturday in Carlignford. Margaret Ritchie and Martin Mansergh debated the future of progressive nationalism. Here is Margaret’s speech. I am still trying to get a copy of Dr Mansergh’s to share with you.

There was also a debate about the future of progressive unionism which included a thoughtful contribution from University of Ulster academic, Arthur Aughey, which I will post tomorrow.

First of all I would like to thank the organisers of the McCluskey Summer School for inviting me to speak here.  It is a great pleasure for me to do so. I’m pleased there is such a good turnout and I hope that this annual event goes from strength to strength. It is important that we maintain our link with the true history of the Civil Rights movement.

It is also important that we go beyond reflection on the Civil Rights achieved for nationalists in the North and look at the future for nationalism itself.

There are of course significant challenges facing Irish nationalists in both the politics of the moment and in the politics that lie ahead.  But those challenges can certainly be overcome.

Of course, where there are challenges, there are also opportunities.  It is my intention that we seize those opportunities and that the SDLP leads the way in constitutional nationalism.

In looking at the future for constitutional nationalism – it is worth considering briefly, where  it has come from..

As I stand before you today, I am of course proud to be  the Leader of what’s often curiously billed as, ‘SDLP – the constitutional nationalist’ party.  However, the ‘constitutional nationalist’ label, of itself, does little for me.  In one sense it’s a clumsy term of convenience coined by the British Government and media – at a time of great turbulence and violence – to distinguish between those nationalists who would talk to you and those nationalists who might shoot you! It adds little more value than that.

My inheritance as an Irish nationalist is much richer and stronger than that. We have been around for a long time in a tradition that predates the SDLP or Sinn Fein or any 1970s label. And in the broad sweep of history there are actually few political movements that have been more successful or more democratic than the mainstream protagonists of Irish nationalism down the years.

Daniel O’Connell built a mass democratic movement and brought huge sections of the population to open air public meetings. O’Connell did this in Ireland a century before Ghandhidid it in India.  It was Charles Stuart Parnell as an Irish nationalist MP in Westminster, who deployed just about every parliamentary device and mastered every procedure – regarded now as routine to the skilled parliamentarians of today.  Irish nationalism has been profoundly democratic and positive in its instincts. Even De Valera, his own hands bloodied from fighting the British and from fighting those who initially settled with the British, having come in from the cold in 1927 handed over power peacefully having established democratic institutions of government and an independent civil service.

And just as O’Connell and Parnell and De Valera, and for that matter Collins, had their own huge successes.. Catholic emancipation; home rule; Irish independence; so too their direct descendants such as Garrett Fitzgerald, Bertie Ahern and John Hume have had theirs.

It was Fitzgerald, Hume and others (Irish Nationalists but also social democrats) who created the framework that has effectively brought to an end Ireland’s historic enmity with Britain.  It was Hume who was instrumental in helping Sinn Fein reverse the armed republican movement out of the cul-de-sac of violence.  It was Hume, Mallon, McGrady and Durkan who insisted that power-sharing would be at the core of any settlement in the North.  And similarly that any settlement required meaningful North Southinstitutional arrangements which gave real and expression to the ‘Irish dimension.’

So Ladies and Gentlemen I and those who share my perspective are much more than 1970s constitutional nationalists.  I represent the latest generation of Irish nationalist with a proud and continuous record of political success and change.  My understanding of constitutional nationalism is the same nationalism that flows from O’Connell, Parnell, De Valera, Collins.  Yes Wolfe Tone and Connolly as well. Fitzgerald, Hume, Durkan and others. 

Those who mark Sinn Fein moving onto the traditional SDLP ground of ‘constitutional nationalism’ should try to see the broader picture. With their disavowal of violence, Sinn Fein are merely rejoining the mainstream of Irish Nationalism.

Meanwhile the SDLP will continue to occupy the principled social-democratic ground at the centre of nationalism on the island. Time will tell if the authoritarian Sinn Fein can ever join us there.

SDLP Irish nationalism is also the nationalism of Seamus Heaney, an optimistic nationalism that believes that we can hope for a great sea change on the far side of revenge  – a nationalism that can believe that a farther shore is reachable from here.  And it is to Heaney’s farther shore that I now wish to turn.

I suppose if you looked at a snapshot of Irish nationalism today, you might conclude that there are three elements in the North, the SDLP, Sinn Fein, and the Dissidents.  Although they represent an ever-growing security threat, I think it is too early to try and categorise the Dissidents.  For me that leaves the two strains of Irish nationalism alive in the North. The social democracy of the SDLP and the populist authoritarianism of Sinn Fein.

For me, the differences between these two are profound.  Those profound differences are, admittedly, to some extent masked by what nationalists have in common on the surface.  Broadly speaking this includes their religious affiliation and even their cultural interests such as GAA, Music and Language etc.

However, on just about everything else that really matters the two nationalisms in the North are fundamentally different. 

Although I don’t like labels, I would tend to categorise the nationalism of the SDLP as progressive nationalism.  A nationalism optimistically reaching out for Heaney’s ‘farther shore’. 

The progress we have made in recent years with the Good Friday Agreement allows us to develop a progressive nationalism that could not have been developed before.  Because the legitimacy of the political pursuit of Irish unity is now accepted on a par with the legitimacy of maintaining the Union, then that surely allows us to look forward and to be more progressive. 

There is no longer a justification for a nationalism that is categorised by resentment or bitterness.  That is why I have said recently (although I’ve been criticised for it), that we want to make Northern Ireland an economic success.  Resentful nationalism says we don’t care about the economy, we are just biding our time until Northern Ireland is over. 

But the old nationalist ambivalence about the Northern Ireland economy cannot be justified. In the coming weeks the SDLP will set out in detail an economic vision for Northern Ireland which recognises that notwithstanding our political goal of Irish unity we must make this place as good as it can be for the people who live here now.  An economy that delivers jobs and prosperity for all our people. Not later. Now.

The other nationalism remains ambivalent on the Northern Ireland economy. Indeed it cannot bring itself to utter the words Northern Ireland. It remains suspicious of investors and entrepreneurs, and resentful of profit. Its leader has said the economy is ‘not important’

But perhaps the biggest difference between progressive nationalism and resentful nationalism is the view they take of society itself.  SDLP progressive nationalism says we want a shared society.  That means a society that is not only non-violent, but which welcomes, cherishes and embraces different traditions and actively sets out to end segregation and division.  Our vision of a shared society is one where people with different religions and races can live side by side in the same areas, sharing the same communities totally at ease with each other. 

Other nationalists reject this vision, largely because they feel it may reduce their control in their single identity communities.  They are happy to see our divisions continue.  They do of course want less violence and they would like to see better relations between the two communities.  But they see nothing wrong or abnormal about our social segregation.
SDLP progressive nationalists have a much higher ambition for our future society.

And of course resentful nationalists will use every device available to them to mark out their territory or to stamp their identity all over the other community.  That is why we have the inappropriate flag waving, the abuse of the Irish language as a cultural weapon and hundreds of unauthorised paramilitary memorials or tributes dotted all over the North.  That is the behaviour of nationalists who deep down do not want to integrate with their unionist neighbours. They seek to dominate.  We, however, in progressive nationalism are more confident, more optimistic and more ready to engage wholeheartedly withunionists across the divide.
Progressive nationalists are capable of uttering the words “Northern Ireland”.  We are unafraid of encountering a member of the British Royal Family at a function.  We do not feel the need to airbrush out of history the sacrifice of many thousands of Irish nationalists who fought in two world wars. We accept the realities of our history and our journey and we want to improve on the past.

Then there is the question of Irish unity itself.  Progressive nationalists see a unity that is a coming together of the two traditions on the island and not a hostile take over.  Our strategy is to provide assurances about the continuation of the institutions of Northern Ireland in any new United Ireland. 
Also an acknowledgement that the challenge for us as Irish nationalists is to make the case to unionists in a way that has never been done before.  What happens to the National Health Service in our vision of a United Ireland?  What happens to our Social Welfare System?  What happens to our Police Service?  These questions have to be answered. And we will try to answer them in a positive spirit.

Standing around waving flags, resenting Northern Ireland and its institutions, while we wait for the day when somehow we all wake up and Ireland is united – is not good enough. Sinn Feinsay that magical day will occur in 2016 to coincide with the 100th Anniversary of the Easter Rising”.  No it won’t.

Shouldn’t they be honest and grown-up about this fundamental issue?

We in the SDLP are developing a credible plan for Irish Unity. Because progressive nationalism is credible while resentful nationalism relies on exploiting fears and insecurities. The SDLP has a successful track record of persuading people about the political future that lies ahead and we are confident we can do the same again.

As we roll out this message of progressive nationalism, we get the usual knee-jerk criticisms from people who should know better.  Recently Brian Feeney suggested that because Sinn Fein have moved onto SDLP ground the SDLP’s reaction is to move on to Alliance Party ground.  He could not be more wrong.

We remain as committed as ever to the achievement of a United Ireland.  We are, after all, committed Irish nationalists.  What has changed in recent years is that unionists have accepted the legitimacy of our objective and goodwill of our endeavours. 

A substantial number of unionists voted SDLP in the last Westminster Election, I regard that as a significant accomplishment that we who proudly aspire to Irish unity can garner support from those who are completely committed to maintaining the union. I am proud of that fact and hope to see more of it. Indeed it is clear that unionists can see the difference between progressive and resentful nationalism.  Our task is to highlight those differences to more nationalists!

The challenge for nationalism now, led by the SDLP, is to make our case to all the citizens of the North and bring them round to our progressive way of thinking on jobs and prosperity; on a genuinely shared society; and on our credible plan for unity that we honestly believe brings benefit to all. 

The battles of the past are over. The only battle now is the battle of ideas. But, again, in line with the broad sweep of history of Irish nationalism it is the social democrats, the SDLP, who will be coming forward with the ideas that will take all of us to a better placed.

McCluskey Summer School report

Danny Morrison came along this morning and justified the bits of the IRA campaign he wanted to, disowned those he didn’t agree with and blamed the brits when all other arguments failed.

He got a frosty reception.

Martin Mansergh talked about constitutional republicanism and the challenges ahead. Will see if I can get a copy of his speech and post.

Ill post Margaret Ritchie’s speech and any other I get my hands on too.

After lunch the debate turned to progressive unionism. John Kyle spoke about the need to make Northern Ireland work and to tackle the real inequality between haves and have nots. A number of the audience suggested he should be in the SDLP. In fact Roy Garland said he sometimes wished he could be in the SDLP.

Arthur Aughey’s analysis was thoughtful. Another text I will try and get my hands on and share.

The last session debated the viability of the current executive. Invoking the late Paddy O’Hanlon a man who could break your heart but would make you think, Eamonn Mallie cursed the absence of people with the ability to think in the current Assembly.

That said he believed the Assembly was here to stay. As did Alex Attwood who said the real issue was not institutional stability but whether the Executive could rise to the challenge of tackling big issues like the inequality or the difficult issues like the sectarianism.

Martin McGuinness has said nothing about Claudy even though he was a senior armed republican at the time. He is on holiday. MI5 are still paying for informers and running security.

When the past in on the agenda, Attwood warned those with a vested interest should not be allowed to dictate the terms of dealing with the legacy of our troubles and suppress the needs of victims ahead of the need of organisations.

When we say we are proposing an “Agreed Ireland” we mean those words absolutely literally

Over the summer I have been reading PJ McLoughlin’s new book ‘John Hume and the revision of Irish Nationalism’ which explores in great detail John’s contribution to nationalist thinking in Ireland.

At the heart of Hume’s ideology and mine is the concept of an “Agreed Ireland” or unity of people, which will ultimately create the conditions for reconciliation, reform and reunification.

Mc Loughlin notes how the IRA’s terror campaign and Hume’s subsequent moves to end it through dialogue with Sinn Fein made it very difficult for many Unionists to accept his word when he talked about an “Agreed Ireland”.

He knew this was an issue. Speaking to Barry White in the early 80’s he pointed out that “agreement between all sides need not necessarily be the emergence of a unitary state”. This reflected the fact that the SDLP has always been willing to explore other models of governance on this island. 

In his conference speech in 1982 Hume spoke about the need to build unionist confidence in the concept of an agreed Ireland. Addressing unionist folk directly he said:

I know that many of you do not realise that when we say that we are proposing “Agree Ireland” we mean those words absolutely literally. We mean an “Agreed Ireland” that you would decisively help to shape.

At the height of the Hume – Adams talks writing in the Belfast Telegraph, John sought to assert his belief that a united Ireland would by definition have to be a new Ireland and that the least likely model to succeed would be a traditional unitary state.

The SDLP has always espoused and respected the principle of consent and remains committed to the creation of an “Agreed Ireland”. ….. Our commitment to real agreement and respect for the legitimacy of both traditions has been reflected in our proposal that any Agreement arising from talks should be subject to dual referenda, i.e. in the north and the south on the same day. This ….. means that such an agreement would earn and enjoy the allegiance of Unionists because it would be validated by a majority in the North. Equally, it would earn and enjoy the allegiance of nationalists because it would be validated by a majority of the people of Ireland as a whole.

In John’s own words “we are not therefore seeking a solution made solely in the image of the nationalist tradition. Nor can we accept as a solution arrangements made solely in the image of the unionist tradition”.

This basic analysis is shared by the current SDLP leadership. Despite Sinn Fein claims that a unitary state is around the corner the simple fact remains that the only way we can unite the people of Ireland is by building reconciliation between its great traditions. That means working the common ground and making the new Northern Ireland a success. The question has surely moved from whether the new North is a region to how we make it work as a vibrant and prosperous region of a new and agreed Ireland.

Claudy report findings are sickening

Colleagues have spoken eloquently and powerfully about today’s Police Ombudsman’s Report into the Claudy bombings. None more so the Ivan Cooper.

Its findings are sickening. The victims and their families were let down by the police, the government and the church. The so called republican’s – IRA men – who planted the bombs have never had the courage to accept responsibility for their actions. Even today Sinn Fein spokespeople are spinning on the report’s findings rather the facing up to their responsibilities.

Today’s report tells us one thing we already knew. That there was collusion to protect a priest who deserved to be tried and subjected to the full rigours of the justice system.

There are also lessons for the new Northern Ireland in this report.

The first is that political policing always fails. The RUC were wrong to ‘protect’ the church and the lack of accountability made that possible. That’s why the SDLP wants MI5’s involvement in security here ended. As long as there are those who are not accountable with influence over policing there will always be the possibility of another cover up.

The second is that the legacy of the past is the present. We need to develop a mechanism to deal with the past and provide truth to those who seek it. Ignoring the problem or simply wishing it away will never address the right to some sort of closure victims and their families have.

The case for same sex marriage

New York State Senator, Diane J. Savino, made a logical and compelling contribution to  a recent debate on same sex marriage in the Albany legislature.

It’s well worth a watch no matter which side of the issue you are on. The bill was defeated.

The issues DRD Minister needs to address

The Assembly’s  Regional Development Committee met in special session today to discuss recent events.

You can listen to a clip from the press conference I gave following the meeting here:

Remarks following special committee meeting

Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy fired four members of the board of NI Water on the basis of a report from the Independent Review Team he had appointed.

Given the events of the last few days and weeks, and particularly those which led to the suspension of departmental Permanent Secretary Paul Priestly early, there are grounds to question whether that inquiry process was truly independent. That will be the main focus of committee inquiry.

At the time the committee accepted and endorsed the report of the Independent Review Team in good faith on the recommendation of Minister Murphy.

The Minister will meet us on 1st September and we will be asking him to update us on specific events since he last came before us on 15th March. We will be asking him – and others –whether the report still stands and whether the very serious decisions taken on the basis of it, including the appointment of interim directors outside the normal process for public appointments, can stand.

The SDLP believes that the Minister must account for recent events.

Specifically, given that he expressed his fullest confidence in Mr Priestly late last week, what exactly happened that led Conor Murphy to say his position was untenable early this week?

What led him to change his mind so abruptly, when and how did he find it out and why did he not find it out earlier?

More generally we will be seeking assurances that his department is being run in a defensible manner. NI Water not only provides a vital public service, it is also a major employer with nearly 1400 staff.

Recall of Assembly’s Regional Development Committee essential in light of Permanent Secretary’s suspension

The suspension of DRD Permanent Secretary, Paul Priestly,  is a very serious development for the department and the Northern Ireland Executive.

It follows a robust and assertive defence of the official by the minister on UTV on Monday night.

This raises serious questions about whether the Minister Conor Murphy MLA knew about the situation inside the department and Northern Ireland Water and whether he was fully appraised of all developments by his senior officials.

I am calling for an immediate recall of the Regional Development Committee to hear witness from the minister himself and other senior officials involved in the suspension of the permanent secretary.

It’s essential that all steps are taken to maintain public confidence in the minister’s stewardship of the department and regional development policy.

Lord Carlile should come here and listen to all sides before condemning those who seek greater accountability

The Independent Reviewer of British anti terrorist laws comments this morning on radio Ulster about MI5’s involvement in Northern Ireland showed a lack of basic understanding about the situation with regard to dissident republicans.

Lord Carlile’s interview was inaccurate in many ways but most fundamentally failed to address the basic issue which is the lack of any local accountability for intelligence services.  SDLP Leader, Margaret Ritchie, has invited him to Belfast to listen to all sides and get his facts straight before condemning those who want to move the situation forward.

Dissident republicans are not a threat to British national security, they are a threat to the stability of Northern Ireland and the reconciliation of the people of Ireland . They claim to be at war with Britain but in fact it is fellow Irish men and women who want to build a new Ireland who they hate.

He is asking the people of Northern Ireland to take his word for the fact that MI5 are doing their best. But the fact remains that he is an English Lord who is no way accountable to the people of Northern Ireland or the Republic and who’s principal duty is to his government and the security of Britain .

The British government will never defeat dissident republicans. It will be the security services of Ireland with the full support and co-operation of the people of this island, North and South, who will undermine the activities of those who seek to drag us back to the past.

The SDLP wishes to see intelligence devolved to the PSNI because there is no accountability in the current arrangements. We do not understand why Sinn Fein are happy to allow unaccountable spies to control intelligence in this part of Ireland .